The world of advertising is constantly evolving, and with the rise of social media, brands are increasingly vying for attention in a crowded digital landscape. Some have turned to a controversial tactic known as "rage-baiting," which involves deliberately provoking outrage or strong negative emotions to generate engagement and publicity. Two recent examples, Sydney Sweeney’s American Eagle ad and Swatch’s "slanted eye" campaign, have sparked intense debate about whether this strategy is a viable marketing technique or a dangerous game that can backfire.
American Eagle's campaign featuring actress Sydney Sweeney, centered around the tagline "Sydney Sweeney Has Great Jeans," quickly drew criticism. A video accompanying the campaign featured Sweeney discussing "genes," leading some to interpret the wordplay as a reference to eugenics and white supremacy, especially given Sweeney's blonde hair and blue eyes. Critics argued that the ad subtly promoted a narrow and outdated beauty ideal, potentially alienating consumers. American Eagle responded to the controversy by stating that the campaign "is and always was about the jeans". Sweeney herself addressed the controversy, stating she was at the Toronto International Film Festival to promote her new movie and not to talk about jeans. Despite the backlash, some analysts noted that American Eagle's stock surged, attributing it to "meme stock" behavior driven by viral attention.
In another instance, Swiss watchmaker Swatch faced widespread condemnation for an ad featuring an Asian model pulling the corners of his eyes in a "slanted eye" pose. This gesture is widely recognized as a racist taunt against Asian people, and the ad sparked immediate outrage on social media, particularly in China. Swatch quickly apologized and removed the ad from all platforms, acknowledging the "recent concerns regarding the portrayal of a model" and expressing regret for any "distress or misunderstanding" caused. The incident led to calls for a boycott of Swatch and its associated brands.
Rage-baiting works by tapping into people's emotional instincts, compelling them to react, comment, and share content, even if it's to express disapproval. Social media algorithms often reward such engagement with increased visibility, making rage-baiting an attractive tactic for brands seeking to cut through the noise. The goal is to generate buzz and keep the brand name in the spotlight, even if it means courting controversy. However, the strategy carries significant risks. If a brand mishandles the fallout from a rage-bait campaign, it can trigger a firestorm of criticism and alienate its core customer base. A poorly executed apology or a failure to address concerns can exacerbate the situation, leading to lasting damage to the brand's image.
Some argue that any publicity is good publicity and that brands are simply adapting to the realities of the attention economy. Others contend that rage-baiting is a cynical and irresponsible tactic that exploits social divisions and undermines important values. They argue that brands have a responsibility to be culturally aware and inclusive and that prioritizing short-term gains over ethical considerations can have long-term consequences.
Whether rage-baiting is a legitimate marketing strategy or a dangerous game remains a subject of debate. While it can generate attention and engagement, it also carries the risk of alienating consumers and damaging a brand's reputation. As consumers become more discerning and socially conscious, brands must carefully weigh the potential benefits against the ethical implications before resorting to such tactics.
